[matilda] Re: Re[2]: gig costs vs party costs - was - proposal for wed 'events' meeting

[cuthbert at riseup.net]

For me the issue about costs and pricing is to do with accessibility, if
we put on big expensive gigs/parties and therefore have to charge alot for
entry then that makes the event exclusive.  This is not a desire to
micro-manage the gig space.

Helen made the point that if we put a limit on entry prices then we may as
well put a limit on every financial transaction (she gave examples of the
cafe and art space).  In the case of someone selling art that was made
while in the building, everyone knows where that money is going (to the
artists), the cafe does actually tell people where the money is going.  In
the case of a gig someone is being charged for coming into the space and i
think it is our duty to tell them where the money is going (even if the
'good cause' is towards the band or promoter).  Nobody in the collective
as far as i know is being paid to do stuff in matilda and if someone puts
on a gig/party where all the profits go to the promoter i think that is
very similar to someone getting paid.

As far as i know all gigs need to be ok'd by a monday meeting anyway and i
dont see it as a big deal for when a promoter says 'can i put this gig
on?' for them to say the costs are £xxx and any money raised above that
will go to the band or whatever.  However i do think that it is a
nessasary step to ensure that costs dont spiral out of control (as i feel
they did on the c90 night) and therefore prices will not become too high
and any promoter will not be at too much financial risk.

cuthbert

P.S. If the majority of the opinion at todays meeting is against me then i
will stand aside.